As copyrights for recorded music are extended, Shane Richmond argues that this
is just the latest step in a campaign that is set to continue until
copyright never expires.

It’s now more than a decade since the internet began killing the music industry. The situation is so much worse than the last thing to kill music - home taping - that the industry is enjoying considerable success in getting its business model protected by law.

And the European copyright extension is great news for artists. At least according to the IFPI, the organisation that represents the international recording industry.

In a statement, it said: “The decision to extend the term of protection for recordings in Europe is great news for performing artists. Artists at the start of their careers will benefit from an increased pool of revenue that will be available to invest in new talent. Established artists can benefit from their work throughout their lifetimes.”

Record industry observers should watch with interest what happens in the US, where artists are beginning to consider a 1976 amendment to copyright law that gives them the option to take the rights to their recordings after 35 years. That amendment became law in 1978, meaning the first artists could begin claiming their ‘termination rights’ from 2013. Some have already begun preparing paperwork.

It’s expected, according to Rolling Stone, that the record labels will argue that these artists were “work for hire” and therefore not entitled to their rights back. Labels like to talk about the rights of artists until the artists’ interests conflict with their own. How will the IFPI spin this argument? We’ll see soon enough.

Anyway, back to yesterday’s decision, which comes from the Copyright Unit of the Intellectual Property Directorate at the European Commission’s Office of the Director General, Internal Markets and Services. The Copyright Unit is run by Maria Martin-Prat who returned to the EU in 2004 following a stint in charge of the legal department at the IFPI. Small world.

Copyright extensions are bad for innovation, bad for the economy and bad for our culture. The only people they are good for are those who collect the royalties and according to research that’s far more likely to be record labels and already-rich stars than it is to be struggling musicians. Using the EU's own data, Martin Kretschmer, a professor at Bournemouth University, found that the bottom 80 per cent of artists would be £50 a year better off with a copyright extension to 95 years. While £50 is better than nothing, it's not enough to offset the overall damage of copyright extensions, which are essentially a disincentive to create new work.

I’ve written at length about this before so I won’t go over the arguments again here but study after study has shown that longer copyright terms do not protect creativity; they harm it. And yet copyright terms keep growing, in the face of the evidence.

This is part of an ongoing pattern - a more cynical person might even call it a campaign - in which copyright will be extended until it never expires. In 15 years or so, you can expect a renewed campaign to extend the copyright on sound recordings to 95 years, matching the term in the US. After that, we’ll see pressure to extend terms further, so that recording artists receive the same protection - life plus 70 years - as composers and lyricists.

The next stage will probably begin next year, if the new directive on copyright terms is anything to go by. Article 3, Clause 2 of the directive states: “By 1 January 2012, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, assessing the possible need for an extension of the term of protection of rights to performers and producers in the audiovisual sector.”

Paul McGuinness, manager of U2, explained a couple of months ago why the recording industry needs greater protections. “Where.” he asked, “is the investment going to come from to fund the next generation of bands such as U2 and Coldplay?”

In this example, we should note, a world without U2 and Coldplay is a bad thing.

It could be just as instructive to consider the works that we wouldn’t have today if copyright never expired. Let’s leave aside artists such as Led Zeppelin, who borrowed liberally from old blues songs and began crediting the original artists only in the late 1980s, when their millions - and the millions they made for Atlantic Records - were safely banked.

Instead consider the works we might never have seen at all had perpetual copyright been the norm. James Joyce’s Ulysses, for example, and much of the work of Walt Disney, relies on a retelling of other people’s material. You can even go as far back as Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet would have infringed on copyright under current laws. Or consider how many modern pop songs rely on Pachelbel's Canon. All creativity relies on work that has gone before.

Those arguing against copyright extensions are commonly painted as ‘freetards’ - idealists who would like all music, film and literature to be given away. That’s the argument of content industry stooges and economic illiterates but it’s one that has the lobbyists on its side.

What’s the betting that those copyright extensions will keep on coming?